Badnewsbear

The second amendment is why those types of things will not happen here, unless people willingly relinquish their rights. Benjamin Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Stand up for your rights because it can't happen here unless we let it.

50s4ever

evos

Gabby Gifford and her husband are gun owners and plan to remain that way. They are all for the 2 amendment and don't see gun control legislation interfering with that basic fact.

The supreme court would have to be communistic or become dictatorial before the 2 amendment could be stricken down. I don't see that happening because our constitution will not allow it.

Please stop the fear mongering about the government wanting to take hunting guns and pistols away from you. Nothing could be farther than the truth.

What we want are responsible owners of guns not crazy people who may have access to guns to go crazy in public.

If you really think you need guns to protect you from your government then you don't believe in democracy or voting. Heaven help us when we can't accept majority rule within a democracy and feel we need to use guns to protect minority rights. That will lead us to tyranny, the very thing democracy is trying to prevent!

Badnewsbear

Evos, you are obviously not well informed on this topic and should work to educate yourself before providing an opinion. First off, they are taking hunting rifles under the made-up political term of assault rifle. Assault rifles do not exist. Cosmetic differences do not make it more deadly. Cuomo and at least 3 other states have proposed confiscation. Another state is proposing to include pump action shotguns as assault weapons. How can you get more "hunting" than that? In addition, the majority of pistols will now be illegal in NY, without significant modification or manufacturers producing new magazines. None of this fits your fairy-tale description of what is happening. The fear mongering is coming from the left as they blame guns for the acts of unstable people. No law being proposed would have prevented any of the recent occurrences, nor will they in the future. Keep giving up your freedoms willingly and see where it leads.

sueanne

If there is a possibility that a murder will have a semi automatic gun with 10 shots, then I will have one to protect myself. As someone stated, pistols are the murders weapon of choice and are regulated to the limit in our state and it doesn't effect the criminals one bit.

This so called SAFE law only takes semi auto guns from us law abiding Americans. Our American GOV is taking our legal guns, that is extreme and against our constitution which protects us from the gov. And we sure need protection form the gov who wants to take legal guns from its people.

KCW007

Evos, In the 2008 SCOTUS decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, only five of the justices(but a majority nonetheless) properly declared that the 2nd Amendment protected a right of the people as individuals to own guns. The other four justices incorrectly ruled that there was was no individual right, rather only the collective right of the government to have guns. By your own definition, those four justices which ruled against the people should be classified as "communist's"? I don't know if I'd go that far, maybe I'd settle for "unAmerican". The founders well understood that the democratic republic that they'd set up was a fragile thing as far as systems of governing go. Historically, republics don't least very long. That's why they incorporated the individual right to bear arms into the Bill of Rights.

Badnewsbear

Great point KC, and with the ages of some of the justices, that balance could easily swing the other way and that would be the end of our rights and freedoms. History does repeat itself and those of you who are not aware of this lesson need to do some homework.

KCW007

Upon exiting the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked by an interested bystander, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy" Franklin answered, "A republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT". What Franklin and the other founders well understood was that republics are, historically, an un-natural form of government. They knew that where the system had been tried before, it usually collapsed with 250-300 years, generally due to fiscal mismanagement and power seeking corruption from within; something that defenseless populations could do nothing about. The natural tendency of "government" is to take power from the people and assume it unto itself. The only defense to that by the people is armed revolt and revolution, or a viable/valid threat to do so; thus the 2nd Amendment.

CREDENCE

The problem is that we have millions upon millions of absolutely STUPID, LAZY, SELFISH, BUMS who for some unknown reason are allowed to vote (of all things)! Exit polling has PROVED without any doubt whatsoever that most obama voters did not / do not have a CLUE about any issues. It's a matter of "Where's my Da*n free cell phone and beer money?" Nothing to do with what will save the sinking SS America.

MyRushie

KCW007

It's real EZ for politicians, and other noteables, to state that they "support the 2nd Amendment"; but until they are intensely questioned as to their specific views on the matter such a statement is highly questionable. As soon as they mention "hunting", and many will, you know that they have no idea what the 2nd Amendment is about. Many will not understand the differances between "the militia" and "a militia". If they start talking about the 2nd Amendment having some relationship to the National Guard you'll know that they are completely lost.